Jose Vargas, Coxsackie, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a disciplinary determination finding him guilty of making threats and engaging in violent conduct. The misbehavior report and hearing testimony of a correction officer who heard petitioner make threatening comments after undergoing a pat frisk constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Evans v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2014]; Matter of Connelly v Griffin, 101 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2012]). Petitioner denied that he made any threats, but this contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see id.). Petitioner's remaining arguments, to the extent they are properly before us, have been considered and found to lack merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

/NYOOpinion>

Matter of Weeden (SC Choice Mgt. Corp./SC of Upstate NY—Commissioner of Labor)

121 AD3d ?

Weeden, Matter of (SC Choice Mgt. Corp./SC of Upstate NY—Commissioner of Labor)

121 AD3d ?

SC Choice Mgt. Corp./SC of Upstate NY (Matter of Weeden—Commissioner of Labor)

121 AD3d ?

Commissioner of Labor (Matter of Weeden—SC Choice Mgt. Corp./SC of Upstate NY)

121 AD3d ?

2014 NYSlipOp 06624

Matter of Weeden (SC Choice Mgt. Corp./SC of Upstate NY—Commissioner of Labor)121 AD3d ?

Weeden, Matter of (SC Choice Mgt. Corp./SC of Upstate NY—Commissioner of Labor)

[—– NYS2d —–]

[*2]

In the Matter of the Claim of Michelle Weeden, Appellant. SC Choice Management Corp./SC Of Upstate NY, Doing Business as Smoker's Choice, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. Michelle Weeden, Sidney Circle, appellant pro se. Kalter, Kaplan, Zeiger & Forman, Woodbourne (Ivan Kalter of counsel), for SC Choice Managment Corp./SC of Upstate NY, respondent. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent. HEADNOTES Unemployment Insurance Benefits Emergency Unemployment Compensation Benefits Disqualification Voluntarily Leaving Employment without Good Cause Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 20, 2012, which, among other things, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving emergency unemployment compensation benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant had previously worked for the employer, and returned to its employ in January 2011 as a district manager. Claimant resigned from that position in May 2011, and thereafter received federally-funded emergency unemployment compensation (hereinafter EUC) benefits (see Pub L 110-252, tit IV, § 4001 et seq., 122 US Stat 2323; Matter of Strujan [Commissioner of Labor], 111 AD3d 1239, 1239 [2013]). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately disqualified claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause and charged her with a recoverable overpayment of EUC benefits. Claimant now appeals. [*3] We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that claimant lacked good cause to leave her employment (see Matter of Malone [Commissioner of Labor], 117 AD3d 1306, 1306 [2014]; Matter of Morales [Argosy Intl., Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 117 AD3d 1277, 1277 [2014]). The Board was free to, and did, reject claimant's disputed testimony that she resigned as a result of unaddressed harassment by her supervisor (see Matter of Morales [Argosy Intl., Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 117 AD3d at 1277-1278). Claimant's other complaints amounted to dissatisfaction with her pay and general working conditions, which did not constitute good cause for her resignation (see Matter of Tineo [Commissioner of Labor], 117 AD3d 1307, 1308 [2014]; Matter of Tanvir [New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.—Commissioner of Labor], 87 AD3d 773, 774 [2011]). Further, "claimant was afforded a sufficient opportunity to present proof in support of her claim" despite the refusal of the Administrative Law Judge to consider testimony of dubious relevance regarding her prior work with the employer (Matter of Lieber [Ross], 46 NY2d 867, 868 [1979]; see Labor Law § 622 [2]; Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History—Roberts], 103 AD2d 919, 919 [1984]). Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.